GD&T Instructor qualifications...

[powerhound]

What are the opinions of those that frequent this board in regards to the qualifications required for one to be able to teach GD&T? Currently it seems that there is no requirement, but to prohibit someone from teaching based on the fact that they have no ASME certification seems extreme. My reasons for this mindset are:
1) My instructor from 1995 has never gotten his certification but he has used it and taught it for over 30 years and is the resident expert at the Fortune 500 company that he works for.
2) The test is expensive. The only way I was able to take the exam was because my employer paid for it.
On the other hand, the Technologist level test that I took was pretty difficult so having the cert should definitely mean something, but just how much it should matter is up in the air as far as I'm concerned. I guess I'm a little biased against authority based on some sort of certification or commission from the experiences I've gained from 16 years in the military. That's another story...
This should be interesting...

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

 

[drstrole]

I do not think you need to be certified to be able to teach. Teaching a subject is a totally different discipline / skill from dimensioning and tolerancing. Marrying the two together is what would make a good instructor.

I consider myself well versed in the Y14.5M standard, have the senior level certification and have taught courses on the subject. The teaching or communication part of relaying the standard is what seems the hardest to me.

The certification is good, but I think you could pass the certification and still not understand how to look at a product and understand how to properly dimension it.


David Strole
Engineering Systems Administrator
GDTP S-0132

 

[dingy2]

I have been training in the subject since 1988 and was not certified in it until about 2001 and again in 2005.

My training methods have not changed but since I wrote both the Technologist and Senior, I found that there were areas where I was previously off standard, which, of course, isn't good. Writing the exams took a lot of studying and although the Y14.5M-94 standard is "deep", I became more knowlegable about the subject.

Being certified does not make a good trainer but not being certified does lose a bit of credibility.




Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[KENAT]

Powerhound, are you talking about someone who markets themselves as an instructor or similar, or just anyone trying to educate others in their normal work day?

I wouldn't say I'm qualified in the least to be an instructor as in teaching formal classes for hours at a time. However, when our old checker got let go it was determined that I would take his place and part of that means helping out less experienced users and teaching a little.

Having GDTP/S would certainly be evidence that you have some knowledge of the standard etc. but doesn't guarantee you'll be a good teacher. Likewise not having it wouldn't necessarily stop you being a good teacher.

All of my professors at university were apparently suitably qualified, however some of them absolutely sucked as teachers. They were experts in their field but useless at teaching it, at least at the basic level required by undergraduates.

I wonder how many of the 14.5 committee actually are accredited?

Something similar to the qualifications to be a checker that were discussed before may be appropriate. thread1103-193286 A combination of qualification and experience or something.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[vigildesign]

I think that anybody can teach GD&T. Now if I want someone to learn ASME Y14.5M-1994, I would look at who is certified to that standard. I took multiple classes from 3 Senior level GDTP prior to getting my certification. I would also look at what material they are using to teach the classes. I would not use any texts, workbooks, or handouts not written by a GDTP or a Y14 committee member.

The course I took in college was from a University educated farmer with many years of experience. His answer to many questions was usually "That's how we do it at _____(fill in job site)." He seemed to know his stuff, but used the 1982 datum symbol. I think he stated that it is the Machinery's Handbook and so he could use it. (There is an error in it, even my 26th edition shows the 1982 datum - pg 609). I learned that his version of Dimensioning and Tolerancing was based on what he learned and not the Y14.5M Standard.

Marcelino Vigil
GDTP T-0377
CSWP

 

[powerhound]

Dave,

You didn't really mean that you wrote both the Technologist and Senior level exams did you? I didn't catch that the first time I read it. Did you mean that you "took" instead of "wrote" or are you really saying that that you wrote the test I took to get my certification?

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

 

[dingy2]

Powerhound

Initially I wrote the Senior in the Detroit area a few years ago and bombed out so I took a different route.

I then wrote and passed the Technologist online and got exactly the score that you achieved. I next, again, wrote and passed the Senior exam.

So, yes, I am certified as both a ASME Professional - Technologist and also a ASME Professional - Senior.

The only reason I have both is that I have been training in this subject for over 20 years and require some sort of accreditation that is traceble.

Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[powerhound]

Okay, I think I'm starting to see what's going on here. What we call "taking" an exam here in the States you must call "writing" an exam in Canada. What I thought you were saying was that you "authored" the test for ASME.

I can see clearly now.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

 

[dingy2]

Powerhound:

Words - drive us all crazy. If you "took" the exam, where did you take it - home? I "wrote" the exam but did not author it. I guess this is like the word washroom or restroom. Both mean the same but, depending upon where one lives, we use different terms.

Anyway, you get the picture.

Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[powerhound]

Yeah, if you say you wrote a test, to me it sounds like the same thing as if you said you wrote a book. After 14 years in the military and dealing with people from all parts of the country, I thought I had heard all the suttle differences in english speak. I just learned a new one.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

 

[axym]

When I teach GD&T classes in the U.S., I warn them about the Canadian-isms that I will use, eh? Like the pronunciations of "process" (o as in hotel) and "composite" (emphasize the first syllable). And the "zed" axis.

Regarding the qualifications needed to teach GD&T, I think the most important one is an enjoyment of teaching. If the trainer has that, then they'll do whatever they can to help the students learn. If teaching is seen as a chore, then the trainer can be very ineffective despite expert knowledge. That said, technical qualifications are critical as well and the GDTP really helps. Like any formal education or certification, it shows that the trainer actually studied the subject according to a standardized body of knowledge. It doesn't make a good teacher, but the GDTP does guarantee that the trainer is well versed in the content of Y14.5. You have to know the rules before you can break them.

Evan Janeshewski

Axymetrix Quality Engineering Inc.

http://www.axymetrix.ca

 

[ringman]

Has anyone had occasion to challenge the material written by some of the GD and T instructors and if so what were the results? I am assuming that most if not all, typically write their books used in class, rather that working strictly to the Standard.

 

[dingy2]

Ringman:

I have been challenged many times over the years and sometimes the participant is correct and I have changed the training book. I do appreciate their thoughts although it can be uncomfortable at times. The training book that I have developed complies with ASME Y14.5M-94 and most challenges that I have had were not valid.

Today, I had a gentleman who kept the standard in front on him and kept changing the page hoping he could find fault in some segment of the presentation or in the training book. He really wasn't trying to improve his GD&T knowledge and ended up disrupting the group.

Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[powerhound]

In the classes that I teach I use Alex Krulikowski's material. I use his GD&T trainer CD and order the fundamentals book for each student in each class. I know some people use their own material but I think the vast majority use the more reputable material by the likes of Krulikowski, Marelli, Foster, and Day.

Powerhound, GDTP T-0419
Production Supervisor
Inventor 2008
Mastercam X2
Smartcam 11.1
SSG, U.S. Army
Taji, Iraq OIF II

 

[MechNorth]

Hello gentlemen,
I apologize for my absence over the past year. Despite many attempts to find time to get back to EngTips, I failed miserably. It's good to see the same handles kicking around.

Re the value of GDTP-S certification for instructors, here's my history: My first 2 or 3 sessions were taught by a college instructor who taught an in-house session for one of our sister business units. The course was a mish-mash of Y14.5M-1994, ISO, company-GD&T, and various other design standards. I wasn't the sharpest person, so I asked questions which the instructor couldn't understand, much less answer effectively. After that, I attended numerous sessions with Tec-Ease and once with IIGDT. The first instructor was not ASME-certified until some 8 years after teaching me; when this instructor was preparing for the exam, I was called to answer their questions. Tec-Ease's instructors are all Senior-Level certified, as was IIGDT at the time. The difference is undeniable.

I was fairly good (my company & I both thought) at GD&T before studying for certification, but it was like a revelation when I got into the standard.

Training, as indicated above, has 2 components; the ability to teach, and the content/knowledge being imparted. A great teacher can fake it for most subjects, but not GD&T. The body of knowledge needs to be at the fingertips. It doesn't mean an instructor who is GDTP-S certified knows everything, but it does mean that they can develop an appropriate answer from the fundamentals of the Standard.

As for whose training materials are best, and how responsive are the authors to criticism and comment, that's very subjective. I've read many instructors' materials, and found each has their own specialty and strong point, but each also has its flaws. As commented previously, many challenges to well-established training materials are fundamentally flawed, but some are correct. Some authors make the corrections while others decide against it because the subject or application is contrary to their biases.

I now train for Tec-Ease and have proofed some of the new training materials. As we can implement corrections, we do. In other cases, we develop new materials to broaden or refine the scope as appropriate. Training materials need to be fluid to reflect new applications and the trainee's needs.

Later gentlemen, (but hopefully not another year!)

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
CAD-Documentation-GD&T-Product Development

http://www.profileservices.ca

 

[KENAT]

Welcome back Jim, good to see you posting again.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[MechNorth]

Tks Kenat.
Re Y14.5 committee member certification, all full members are GDTP-S as I recall. Most attendees that are not actually members are also GDTP-S from what I've seen. The discussions are way too in-depth to follow without knowing the standard from its base level on up.

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
CAD-Documentation-GD&T-Product Development

http://www.profileservices.ca

 

[dingy2]

MechNorth:

Wecome back - I missed the great discussions we had and, frankly, lost a little interest in this forum without you.

Dave D.

http://www.qmsi.ca

 

[MechNorth]

Tks Dave. Nice to be back & hear from everyone again. I do my best to liven things up when I can.
Take care,
Jim

Jim Sykes, P.Eng, GDTP-S
Profile Services
CAD-Documentation-GD&T-Product Development

http://www.profileservices.ca